I watched both of them last night. Rather than go into detail, my Executive summary from my POV is:
Kids table:
Jindal is done. While the other three candidates all fairly harmoniously promoted conservative values over what the Dems are offering, he spent his time attacking the other Republicans in kind of a whiny and desperate way.
Huckabee once again said stuff I was 90% in agreement with, but I still can't put my finger on exactly why I can't vote for the guy.
Santorum actually had some good policy points, but he's never gonna get the poll numbers.
Christie made some eloquent points on the fiscal side, and made some very good arguments against Hillary. Once again though, he let his "police state" side show, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he created one the day after he was elected.
Big table:
People said Bush did better than in all the previous debates, however I had zero time for him and fast forwarded through all his air time so have no idea what he said. :)
Kasich needs to give it up. He came off as a desperate, obnoxious boor who was promoting establishment talking points - of both the Rs and Ds.
Rubio once again came off as eloquent and prepared, and seemed to say the "right" mainstream things, and I'm betting right now that the Republican establishment is going to make him their guy.
Fiorina once again came off as presidential, and again gave good, specific answers, though she really didn't have any outstanding moments here IMO.
Carson was slightly more forceful, but his overall calm and contemplative demeanor still dominated. I would choose him for my brain surgeon every time, but while calm and contemplative is *A* good presidential quality, it can't be the only, or even predominate one. There's got to be some, "I dare you to cross the line" fire, and he just doesn't have that.
Cruz came off much better than in previous debates. As one commentor on a site I read said, "less like a fire and brimstone preacher". He was able to get good, conservative talking points and ideas across in a palatable and more likeable manner. He also gave clear and concise hard answers to questions, versus being nebulous.
Trump was a nicer version of Trump. I didn't really see anything new.
Rand Paul came off a good deal less "desperate to get a word in" and interacted better regarding disagreements with his opponents. One point where he impressed me was in arguing against increased military funding. A "trillion dollars" was being tossed around. I don't know where it came from. In his argument, he asked how someone can be a true fiscal conservative if they don't consider military cuts, or at least level funding while they are talking about cutting everything else. He argued for a strong military, but against just throwing money at them simply to "support our military". I find that hard to argue with, as DoD bureaucrats are as good as any other bureaucrats at wasting money. Disappointingly to me, all the other candidates ganged up on him with the establishment, "our military gets whatever they want" attitude.
Synopsis (again, IMO): Cruz is beginning to break himself out in a good way. With a year to go, I think he has a good chance to gather support and overtake the current front-runners. All the pundits and establishment people seem to be rallying around Rubio. Mainstream popularity might be leaning towards Carson, but like I said, I'm not sure he has the juice to push through. If I were a betting man, at this point I would say the establishment R's are going to do everything they can to make Rubio the guy.
